Academic Integrity

Contact your instructor as soon as possible. You have five business days from the date that you receive your “Notification of Possible Academic Integrity Violation” letter to respond, so take time to think through your explanation and gather evidence. This process is an investigation, and your response is your chance to present your side and include anything you want in the record.

The reporting instructor investigates and decides responsibility (not “guilt”) using the preponderance of the evidence standard—whether it’s more likely than not that a violation occurred. You will receive notice of what is expected of you at each step.

Use your five days wisely. Explain your perspective clearly and attach supporting evidence (drafts, notes, in-class writing, etc.). Course policies define what is and isn’t allowed. If you did something that is clearly prohibited—especially regarding generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use—intent may not override the violation.

The process assumes students make mistakes, not that they are dishonest people, and emphasizes learning from those mistakes.

The instructor who filed the report makes that determination based on all materials submitted.

Serious misconduct is referred to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards for investigation and determination under the procedures described in the Code of Conduct. These cases can either be first offenses described as “serious violations” [elsewhere on this website] or repeat offenses that demonstrate a pattern of misconduct, whether a failure to learn from prior violations or an escalation in the severity of misconduct. The decision whether to refer individual cases to Student Conduct is made by the Integrity Officer and the Student Conduct Officer in Part Two of the process.

After Part Four has concluded, you may appeal both the finding and the grade. To appeal, notify the Academic Integrity Officer within three business days of receiving the sanction letter and explain why the appeal should be granted. Appeals are only approved if you can show that:

• the instructor showed bias
• significant procedural errors affected the report’s outcome
• the grade penalty is inconsistent with the violation described
• new evidence, not available at the time the report was prepared, might affect the decision

Educational sanctions applied by the Integrity Officer (usually reflective assignments or workshops) cannot be appealed. If your academic integrity case is referred to Student Conduct, it will be processed through the process outlined in the Code of Conduct, and you may follow the appeal process outlined there.

Only suspensions or expulsions appear on transcripts, and those sanctions are not applied under this process. The University will maintain a record of the incident for a period of seven years from the date of the incident, before purging the record. Any record of an incident that results in a sanction of university suspension or expulsion from the university will be maintained by the university permanently. Requests for university records are governed under the applicable provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, and applicable university policy.

If you have questions about the records release policy, please contact the Adelphi University One-Stop Student Services Center.

Only Turnitin’s AI detector should be used, and the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity’s guidelines state that its report be supported by other assignment evidence. Turnitin’s detector is one of the most reliable and has been calibrated to minimize false positives.

Faculty also rely on their own expertise—they’ve read thousands of student papers, and signs of GenAI use are often clear.

GenAI tools include not only ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot but also revision tools like Grammarly or QuillBot. If your instructor prohibits GenAI, using these tools can still be a violation even if your other courses allow them.

Review your course materials to ensure expectations about collaboration, citation, and GenAI use are clear. This is not required before reporting, but faculty vary widely in what they permit (e.g., collaboration, Grammarly, GenAI), so clarity in syllabi and assignment instructions is essential.

If you believe the student violated the Code of Academic Integrity, go to Maxient and follow the prompts. For questions, email Michael LaCombe, the Integrity Officer, at lacombe@adelphi.edu.

It depends. Informal “two strikes” policies deny students the due-process protections built into the formal system. Students may accept blame just to avoid grade penalties, and other students may perceive the lack of documentation as unequal treatment. If you do give a student a warning, you should be careful not to consider that warning to be an initial violation warranting more severe grade penalties if repeated–this is the sort of informal “two strikes” policy that should be avoided.

As a reminder, the assignment and course grade penalty is at the discretion of the reporting faculty member. You may issue a warning to a student after using the formal process

Filing a report—with an appropriate, often mild grade penalty—gives the student a written explanation, a chance to respond, an appeal process, and an opportunity to learn from the experience. It also avoids undocumented “free passes” that can unintentionally encourage misconduct.

No. But since syllabi function increasingly like formal agreements, you should clearly outline expectations—especially around collaboration, citation, and GenAI use. Student preparation and faculty expectations vary widely; clarity prevents confusion and reduces emotional responses when reports occur.

Suggested syllabus language and descriptions of each violation category are available on this site and can be posted to Moodle.

Explain what specifically raised your suspicion. Expert intuition matters, but students perceive unexplained conclusions as arbitrary. Provide details—e.g., hallucinated facts, advanced terminology, unlikely reasoning, inconsistent style, or references the student has probably not read.

Attach relevant course materials and cite where student conduct violated them. Indicate whether academic integrity was discussed in class. This shows the report is more than conflicting statements of belief.

For plagiarism or GenAI misuse, include Turnitin originality and/or AI reports. Turnitin has a low false-positive rate but can miss GenAI use, so a 0% AI score is not proof of originality. Your description and evidence should persuade a neutral reader using the preponderance of the evidence standard: is it more likely than not that the violation occurred?

You do. In Part Four of the reporting process, the reporting instructor determines responsibility. The Integrity Officer and the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity do not decide individual cases or impose academic penalties, and the Integrity Officer cannot review reports to suggest whether they should be submitted or not.

Yes. The grade penalty is entirely up to you. However, any assignment that violates the Code of Conduct should generally be revised and resubmitted for credit, and penalties should reflect the seriousness of the conduct.

No. Educational sanctions are determined by the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity using uniform criteria. Sanctions are triggered only by documented reports.

Suggestions for new or revised sanctions are always welcome.

A failing course grade is recommended only in cases of serious misconduct. Please see the violation categories and suggested course penalties.

This is another reason informal “two strikes” policies are problematic—failing a student for a second incident without documentation of the first denies due process.

Transcript notations occur only if the student is suspended or expelled, and only decisions referred to the Office of Student Conduct in Part Two of the process can incur these sanctions. This means that your report may be referred, but only if the conduct described in it is especially serious. The submission of an academic integrity violation report generates an education record for the student. This record is subject to the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. The record will be maintained for a period of seven years from the incident date, before being destroyed, in accordance with university policy. Students who are suspended or expelled from the university will have that record maintained permanently by the university, in accordance with university policy.

Only cases referred to the Student Conduct and Community Standards in Part Two can result in suspension or expulsion. Sanctions applied by the Integrity Officer are educational in nature and designed to support learning and reflection. Suspension and expulsion are rare, though some students choose to withdraw if facing significant sanctions.

Yes—but not by itself. Turnitin’s AI detector is reliable but not infallible. It can fail to flag AI-generated text, and it does not distinguish well between text created by GenAI and text heavily revised by GenAI tools.

Use Turnitin reports thoughtfully:

• AI scores below ~20% don’t generate percentages because the false-positive risk is higher.
• A score above 20% does not guarantee GenAI use; judge the writing holistically.
• Consistent style, structure, and vocabulary across the assignment may indicate full AI authorship even if only a section is flagged.
• Conversely, poor paraphrasing or citation issues can produce higher scores without indicating GenAI use.

Turnitin’s detectors should never be used to bulk-report students based on percentage thresholds.